I'm not referencing that, I'm talking about what they could (and WOULD) do if net neutrality was killed. They'd throttle the shit out of connections for both businesses and home users and if you complain "Well, you're not paying for the `high speed' option on your 50 Mb connection, that's why you can't stream any videos!".

If net neutrality was killed, they would nickle and dime the shit out of customers and force internet businesses to raise prices or be cut off from their customers.

Except if you bothered to watch the video linked above for actual in-game performance testing (NOT synthetic benchmarks), you'll see that most of the time Intel is neck and neck with AMD - not "smoking" them.

Bull, you can always pay for more bandwidth, just like we currently do at home. This simply means that Comcast can't charge Netflix an extra $1,000,000 per month to no be throttled and lose all of their customers due to performance problems and it they cannot charge home users an extra $5 a month to not have their Netflix throttled to unusable speeds, $5 a month to access Facebook, $10 a month to access Google sites, etc.

Well, at least your bullshit has been appropriately modded as "funny" - because it's a joke if you think that FISA gives a fuck about our rights or that your beloved NSA has no ill intentions towards Americans.

And why would a US company lose their right to privacy just because they deal with a foreign nation? News flash, this isn't 1605, EVERYTHING is international these days. Claiming that rights cease to exist because "DUH FOREIGNERS!" is idiotic.

It sounds like something every government would try. Sadly, few raise any real outcry over it and those who do are mocked because "Boogeyman!".

If they didn't start school until after 2001, then yes, their definition quite likely does include that.

That's because you (possibly?) foolishly believe that the goal is to stop "terrorists". It's not, the goal of all of these spying programs is to control the population, terrorists (especially the government trained and funded ones) are just a nice PR tool to achieve that goal.

Fixed that typo for you.

Except you ignored the other half of my sentence - "something that's been easily observable for long periods of time". Essentially, he explained to you why an object falls if you drop it (gravity), and you're pissed that he used logic to explain it instead of an overly complicated pay-walled paper on it.

He gave you logic and something that's been easily observable for long periods of time. Instead, you whine because he doesn't agree with you that men should be punished until women choose to be interested in the things men enjoy.

And how did that latter one change? Was it a stupid "early 90's feel good" ad campaign? Was it a law forcing them to be nice? No, it was because they saw the success of those nerds and started to look into it themselves.

Just like Microsoft and Co, you're missing the "issue". Girls aren't taking programming classes because they don't WANT to. Discriminating against boys won't magically make girls want to learn how to write code.

Girls have the same opportunity to sign up for these classes as boys do, they simply CHOOSE not to. Like it or not, girls and boys find different things interesting.

No, that's the problem with property taxes - the most immoral form of taxation. Property taxes are the government declaring that it owns every home and the land they're built on and you must pay the government rent or be evicted.